semperpietas

You do realize that in order to eligible for Obamacare, you have to have a full time job?  My husband is a doctor, I am a healthcare lawyer, I guarantee you I know more about how Obamacare works than your political talking heads know.  It isn't anything close to a disaster, very far from it, and take that from someone who treats patients all day long in a hospital.  Also, health insurance is far from a "few hundred bucks".  I own my own law firm and I can tell you what I pay for health insurance for my employees, it is a lot more than a few hundred dollars a month, try more like $600 a person per month.  
 
You are completely entitled to your opinion, but the fact of the matter is that people that receive Obamacare are working, and working hard at full time jobs.  These are exactly the people that we want to keep in this country, so I have to disagree with you that we would deny citizenship to these people.  

As I wrote earlier, if the administration/Stephen Miller were truly concerned about "US taxpayers propping up immigrants receiving benefits", then why not simply enforce the Affidavit of Support and make the sponsor reimburse the govt?  Instead, this just reeks as a lame attempt to kick out lawful immigrants.
 
Gotta say it - republicans are living in the now, but are toast in the next few decades if they can't expand their base beyond what it currently is.  Changing demographics are gonna catch up to them.

Kept tabs on this topic during the day and I'm glad to see it didn't disappoint, since I got through at least three bags of popcorn reading all this.
 
My two cents:
 
It's a basic tenet of law in America (and much of the western world) that you cannot punish someone in the future for actions that were legal and approved of in the past. Given that Obamacare subsidies, TANF/food stamps, even EIC on your income tax returns (yeah, they're going after this... seriously) have never been subject to public charge concerns, I don't think it's possible or probably even legal to retroactively punish those people by holding it against them today. Certainly, this administration can, by executive order alone, redefine 'public charge' so that from this point onwards those programs are included, but retroactively to the past? I doubt it. This would be one sure fire way to be able to challenge this policy in the courts.
 
A second way would be how they plan to consider family members' use of these programs, including US citizen relatives, for public charge considerations of the alien. It's yet another central tenet of law that you cannot punish person X for the actions of person Y. This might be an even stronger argument than the one above about how to challenge such a policy, if it were to be enacted.
 
Fortunately, since Drumpf and his administration are largely incompetent, and he has hacks and white-supremacist-adjacent-people like Stephen Miller coordinating policies like this, it's a virtual certainty that this would be challenged in court. At a minimum, it will be delayed for months, perhaps years, until the Supreme Court eventually rules on it. And by then, if sanity returns and a Democratic (big and small d) president is elected in 2020, they could render the whole thing moot by yet again redefining 'public charge' with the stroke of a pen on day 1.
 
And to re-iterate what was already said, these changes would apply to AoS and immigrant visas only, not naturalisation. To make them apply to naturalisation would require an act of Congress, and there is zero chance of anything like this getting through the Senate; no Democrat would vote for it. That's largely why Trump's trying to use his executive authority to make this change.
 
Additionally, this policy likely wouldn't apply to pending cases. It would instead take effect on some arbitrary date the administration would choose, and so any case filed on or after that date would be bound by these new rules, and cases filed or pending before that date would be bound by the existing rules.
 
It's just the latest example of anti-immigration policies and rhetoric espoused by Trump and his supporters. As I said, with someone like Stephen Miller at the helm, a man who would cut immigration to zero if it were possible, with the use of this chart as his second choice, it's going to be a constant rut of things like this churning through the news over and over and over again until Trump leaves office. Or is, ahem, made to leave office.

The problem is this for example, Obama Care you can legally use as an LPR, and one day you come and make it illegal and penalize someone out of the blue - unless they put a future date and give time for people to be off it.
 
This will intentionally hurt legal residents who did nothing wrong until this Orange one came along.

There do seem to be people within the current administration who would like to penalize Green Card holders for taking advantage of programs  like ACA and CHIP (which are not currently considered "being a public charge," and for which we legally qualify).  However, I hope that if they get their way and change our eligibility for those programs, they will not be able to make it retroactive - so we'd have to go off ACA if we are still LPRs and not citizens, but what we did when we did legally qualify for those programs wouldn't hurt us or our chances for citizenship.

My biggest concern with this policy is the retroactive aspect if it is enforced that way. If, as a legal immigrant who has been here on two different visas and is now currently adjusting to permanent resident, and who was added onto my husband's Obamacare after checking with our lawyer that doing so was 100% legal and would not be considered a public charge, I would then have to get off Obamacare and pay for other insurance, yes, it would be extremely difficult, expensive, and stressful. But I would, in the interest of keeping my nose clean as an immigrant, do the difficult, expensive, and stressful thing, as I have always done while being an immigrant. It is what it is. But to retroactively say that I now can't apply for residency or citizenship, even if I were to get off Obamacare if this new rule goes into effect, for following the law and legally having the mandatory healthcare, is absolutely absurd. 
 
Can anyone speak, ideally logically and without inflammatory language, as to the likelihood of the retroactive aspect of this being legally passed? 

We do indeed sign those agreements of financial support. And legal immigrants are also bound to not use things which are restricted under ''public charge'' rules. But the federal exchange (Obamacare) is NOT, I repeat, is NOT, anything to do with being a public charge. Furthermore, even if a USC spouse uses benefits which might fall under the ''public charge'' section, but their LPR spouse does not, this is also all perfectly legal. Having legal health insurance which does not fall under ''assistance'' which is purchased via an exchange and paid to a private health insurance company does not constitute being a public charge. It's called being responsible and having health insurance. LPRs and their USC spouses who get to claim any, if at all benefit of a subsidy by having a reduction in their payment, is still not in any way shape or form ''a public charge'', and is very tiny a number. Most who sign up to O'care do not get payment reduction, and pay the same dang high premium as anyone else does, on the same dang plan you could call up the insurance company and get anyway, you know?

Jaquelly, your immigrant ancestor coming through Ellis Island 'legally' has no bearing on the subject of this thread any more than my own immigrant ancestor coming through Ellis Island 'legally' does. But they still had to put up with the same old, same old nonsense they are trying to pull now.
 
To put this in a way everyone could understand, the government wrote laws that stated that USCs and legal immigrants have legal access to certain services. This is not a lie on the part of previous administrations - this is law and legal policy.
 
The government now wants to say that legal immigrants cannot have access to those services, if they have used those services (and it's not clear how retroactive it will be as the original policy memo I saw was quiet on this subject but went into even greater depth) this will be grounds for denial in a process that is their legal right to undertake. Furthermore, if their USC, legally has access to these services, as is their Constitutional right as a citizen, their use would case harm towards their immigrant spouse, or children towards their parents. It is neither in the spirit of the law nor is any way shape or form legal. But if this administration wants to really go down this path - they will lose it.
 
These are USCs, and their legal LPRs who came here the right way, pay taxes, and may utilize services which are legal for them to use.
 
I'm curious what else this new memo implies to say. The old one went so far as to say if a USC and their immigrant spouse did not buy ANY health insurance, or did not maintain health insurance continually (which is also against the law!) they would be penalized. This is not smart immigration policy, it's downright harmful stupidity.
 

Obamacare was listed as one of the forms of "welfare" in the article that can disqualify you. This is why it's so frightening. 
 
 
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/now-trump-administration-wants-limit-citizenship-legal-immigrants-n897931

It's amazing to find people on here who have brought spouses and other family members here but at the same time, seem to support politicians who are anti-immigrant and who are trying to make it more and more difficult for our loved ones to legally immigrate to be with us.
 
Do you guys not realize that those same politicians would like to prevent your loved ones from immigrating here or naturalizing as well? Of course, typical conservative response: I've got mine; so crew you and your family.
 
The government represents us and should work better for us. It's insane to have to wait years for fiance and then AOS applications to be processed. Some European countries are able to have it completed in about 3 months.

I'm confused here. Based off of this article, I, a US Citizen from birth, was on obamacare for a few years when I was in college since it was REQUIRED. I couldn't work and had no other health care options since I was older than 26 and no longer allowed on my parent's health care. 

My husband is now up for his green card renewal from the 2 year temporary one to the 10 year one. If he ever wants to become a citizen, will he not be able to do it because the government TOLD ME i had to be on obamacare and now he gets punished for it? That sounds ###-backwards. 

Since when was getting Obamacare WHEN IT WAS MANDATORY forbidden for a green card holder? And yes, we had to get obamacare when we entered the US before we found jobs, which is why we're now worried about it affecting my green card spouse. 

Just because this annoys the heck out of me:
https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/affect-effect/
 
What I don't understand is why do you want to make it HARDER for people to naturalize?  When they naturalize they gain the ability to vote and to make more contributions to society vs paying into a system in which they will never see the gains.  Basically because I'm an LPR not a USC, I am paying for someone else's medical expenses, someone else's social security, someone else's everything, but yet I have zero say in where my taxes may or may not go, and are not able to also use those products in which I pay into. 
 
(Just for clarity, it's MY choice to not become a USC at this time, so I don't complain.  I really don't care in all honesty about the fact I can't use medicare and am just using this as an anecdote to prove a point about how others may think or feel. ) 
 
I think immigration itself should be harder, not the ability to become a USC.  
 

Using the federal exchange and state exchanges is legally available to an LPR by law. It's not considered public charge assistance either. So I hope that those posting in this thread realize that there are many currently on this forum who utilize this legally available method (as millions of others in the US do) to obtain health insurance. Their spouse may have had the plan, and then added them (legally) to their plans. This would threaten that, by penalizing immigrants and their families for utilizing something that the federal government told them was legal for them to do so to begin with. Lawsuits will happen, and it will be a fantastic pushback.
 
Nevertheless this subject has been a topic I've been warning about on this forum for several months now, when it first leaked out.

Nothing wrong with arranged marriages (let's not be judgmental of other cultures, out of respect).
Arranged marriages established for the sole purpose of circumventing the immigration system, on the other end... plenty wrong with that.
OP, it looks like you tried to be too clever and have been caught out. Don't compound your 'cleverness' by getting yourself into even more trouble.

The fact that the marriage was arranged was not the problem. The fact that OP is on an F1 visa, is working when they shouldn't be, and has a USC fiancee shows immigrant intent.

I think you are in for a ride if you think you have the upper hand. Prenup is meaningless in regards to the I-864. Not trying to sound like a downer, but why are you making this like a game (especially with the daughter's petition). What's your end game if you already know it's not going to work out between your wife? Divorce and move on with your life.

So...if people don't love absolutely everything about this country they shouldn't even consider moving here?? Make perfect sense...*eyeroll*

We will agree to disagree on this. Not everyone is in love with the United States. So of us are moving there because our spouses are ineligible to live in our home countries. Yes, I am moving there. Do I think it's better there than the UK? Not necessarily.
The oppression of free speech is one of the worst things that can happen to you. That's what brings trouble! I would be very disappointed if I had to live in a country that did not allow me to express my disapproval of the government and its policies. It is possible to disagree without causing "trouble". It's called debating.

Really? For something most of us have done at one point or another you hope he is denied? Wow.

That's a bit harsh. He's entitled to an opinion. It's called free speech. That's the whole point of democtatic elections and the right to vote - to allow your opinion to count.
Perhaps a public venue such as Facebook is not the best way to air your views when you are going through immigration but nevertheless he is entitled to his opinion.
The system is not perfect, by any means. But it's the only system we have to be with our loved ones. There are many things I don't agree with in this process (auto-expedite based on geography/nationality being one, by the way) but it is what it is.

This congressman has proposed a bill that would stop the issuance of K1s and would tell Customs & BP to stop K1 visa holders from being permitted into the country. However, this bill has been sent to a House committee where there is a 99% chance it will die without any action taken on it. For it to become a law, it must first pass the committee and the both the Senate and House of Representatives before being signed by the President. It will either not pass committee (most likely), not pass the Senate or House, and wouldn't be signed by the current President. It is very frightening though that such a bill is even being considered, so K1 Visa holders and supporters should be vigilant and politically active. It can be as very little as spreading awareness and USCs writing their political representatives. I wouldn't worry too much about this one yet, but would be prepared to take action if it somehow got out of committee.

It is most likely this bill will die in committee. Even if it made it through to the President's desk, I doubt it would be signed.

It is most likely this bill will die in committee. Even if it made it through to the President's desk, I doubt it would be signed.

Not a problem. We all help each other here, and without this my fiancee and I would have had a much harder time with this process.
While its never too early to start collecting evidence and getting ready, you really won't need to have the I-134 ready until your fiancee has reached the interview stage. When you submit your petition, it will go through a USCIS Service Center (likely California), and then to the NVC, and then to the embassy. This process will likely take several months. Once your petition has reached the embassy, they will send your fiancee a letter or email detailing all the items she has to bring for the interview and a completed I-134 will be one of those items they ask for in that request.